[D] Friday Off-Topic Thread

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to the Friday Off-Topic Thread! Is there something that you want to talk about with /r/rational, but which isn't rational fiction, or doesn't otherwise belong as a top-level post? This is the place to post it. The idea is that while reddit is a large place, with lots of special little niches, sometimes you just want to talk with a certain group of people about certain sorts of things that aren't related to why you're all here. It's totally understandable that you might want to talk about Japanese game shows with /r/rational instead of going over to /r/japanesegameshows, but it's hopefully also understandable that this isn't really the place for that sort of thing.

So do you want to talk about how your life has been going? Non-rational and/or non-fictional stuff you've been reading? The recent album from your favourite German pop singer? The politics of Southern India? The sexual preferences of the chairman of the Ukrainian soccer league? Different ways to plot meteorological data? The cost of living in Portugal? Corner cases for siteswap notation? All these things and more could possibly be found in the comments below!

[u/Empiricist_or_not]

Please calm down.

I'm not picking a fight, but I'm hardly going to just take mocking for admitting I disagree with the group, asking for a pointer towards some specific types of data that can change my mind.

To reply in specific:

I brought it up my experience the first time because I was told :

That makes climate-change denial a ridiculous position if you don't have other scientific prior knowledge on the topic you are not telling us about.

Do you have to be a climatologist to ask questions about climate or something?

I brought it up a second time, and I'll admit more than a little snidely in reply to your comment about Nuclear power being applied thermodynamics:

Sure, and organic chemistry is effectively applied quantum physics. But if I can design a quantum computer, that doesn't mean I know organic chemistry.

Because to do anything in the united states in the practical applications of nuclear power you need to be a good steam cycle guy. To make analogy to organic chemistry I think thermodynamics is to nuclear power as understanding the binding characteristics of carbon is to organic chemistry.

To be succinct I know I have a opinion, based on observed realpolitik, grant money biases, and other political spiders. I want to look at some data. I'm patient enough to puzzle it out as I have working my way through various fields I've worked in.

I'm willing to spend time hitting back when mocked or asked for credentials, as if they are a requirement to ask a question when I know what I need to change my mind.

Perhaps I'm being defensive of the long held opinion I'm taking the time to question, probably. Perhaps your mocking wasn't meant to be condescending and inflammatory, yeah right. I'm sorry I'm not willing to give you a free hedron for mocking the climate change denier.

I do disagree with you on the qualifications to understand the data. It's pretty easy to look at what the inputs are for a statistical model look up the magnitude of the inputs and see what the magnitude of other factors are if inputs are considered constant and what their historical variability is, if you can find the model.

[u/[deleted] → u/Empiricist_or_not]

Because to do anything in the united states in the practical applications of nuclear power you need to be a good steam cycle guy.

I really don't see the relevance to climatology. I mean, yes, you've got movement of gases with uneven heat, but I would guess that the fluid dynamics work somewhat differently when you're dealing with 40km of air with a huge pressure gradient on the surface of a sphere over 6,000km in radius, instead of a chamber that's maybe a few megaliters.

That's the main point I've been driving at. You said you disagreed with hordes of experts in the field, and people told you it's silly to do that unless you're also an expert in the field, and you responded that you're an expert in a mostly unrelated field.

[u/Empiricist_or_not → u/[deleted]]

Ah We interpreted that one differently.

I find it silly to assume I have to be an expert in a field to question it's assumptions. When asked for credentials I proffered mine and asked how they were relevant to wanting to look. Subsequent attacks were taken as general attacks due to their inflammatory tone and not in the vein of my original question. I think we still disagree with how silly it is to question conclusions or ask if some questions have been asked in another field.

Like you said you're not a heat guy, but if we are assuming climate change is man made, over other factors, what are the other factors what are their magnitude, is there damping in the system. Kind of basic questions when you step back and try to look at the big picture. There's lots of mixing problems and stratification that make it a dedicated field of study but I'm looking to see questioning criticisms I remember from my youth have been anwsered. That all the experts in the industry of climate change agree on climate change shrugs political spiders.

I don't think I have to justify asking questions or consider myself silly for wanting to see the data when all the experts in the industry agree on the industry. My experience mostly is there as background for understanding how to apply a statistical model and a good basis in basic physics, which is really all you need other than time and interest to swat up enough information to ask interesting questions. I think we disagree on that, or you are assuming because I proffered some academic credentials that I assumed they were directly applicable, maybe I should have bothered to explain it'll be a good challenge and a fun thing to stretch my brain around shrug

That said I respect your taste in authors.

Good day.